Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

[Stefan Drees <[e-mail]>]

I fully second the below points that John makes.

{"Stefan":true}
Am 03.07.13 03:11, schrieb John Cowan:
> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
>
>> Proposal 1:
>>
>> In section 2.2 (Grammar -> Objects):
>>    No change
>> In section 4 (Parsers):
>>    Add: "If a parser encounters an object with duplicate names, the parser MUST use only the last
>>    name/value pair that has the duplicate name.
>
> I object to this, because it is unclear what "use" means.  If it means
> "report to the application", then a streaming parser cannot do this
> without ceasing to be streaming: that is, it must buffer up the whole
> object in order to be sure not to report any inappropriate pairs.
> If "use" means something else, it must be explained more clearly.
>
>> In section 5 (Generators):
>>    Add: "The names within an object SHOULD be unique."
>
> I approve of this.  However, an additional sentence is required to explain
> which names are distinct and which are not.
>
>> Proposal 2:
>>
>> Same as Proposal 1 *except* that a second sentence is added for section 4: "A parser that streams
>>    its outputs MUST fail to finish parsing if it encounters more than one name/value pair with the
>>    same name."
>
> This puts only a slightly lower burden on streaming parsers: they now
> do not need to buffer up the whole object, but may report it on the fly,
> keeping track of the names already seen in order to fail if one of them
> is a duplicate.  I still think this burden is excessive.
>
> I therefore propose that nothing be said about parsers, but that generators
> SHOULD NOT generate duplicate names, where "duplicate" is defined to mean
> consisting of the same code points or scalar values, as the case may be,
> in the same order.
>